User talk:WillemienH

Hi WillemienH! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I removed Category:Fictional hares and rabbits from Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit because the article itself is not about a fictional hare or rabbit. Trivialist (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyperbolic geometry, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Diverge and Hypercycle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw your message on my talk page. I was unsure if you would see if I replied there, so I'm leaving you a message here on your talk page. In any case, you did a good job with your edits. The only small issue was your initial edit to Angle of Parallelism was just a link to the intended target, not actually a redirect. To create a redirect, make this statement the first thing on a page.

#redirect [[Target of redirect]]

Otherwise, like I said, good job. Don't worry about being a beginner - we were all new once. :) – Majora4 (leave a message) 20:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! At the Teahouse, new questions go at the top. It is a special page. Just a friendly pointer. -DangerousJXD (talk) 05:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ultraparallel theorem page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made a minor omission in this edit [1]. ;) CiaPan (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beltrami–Klein model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conformal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Genocides in history#Harrying of the north

Also if you post to a talk page and the posting includes footnotes please place a {{reflist}} template before your signature, so that your footnotes are kept in the same place as your posting.

-- PBS (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isotropic quadratic form, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plane. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Poincaré disk model, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chords and Conformal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You walk through a door. Pigs eat out of a trough. JRSpriggs (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hyperbolic geometry you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammy1339 -- Sammy1339 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hyperbolic geometry you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hyperbolic geometry for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammy1339 -- Sammy1339 (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Non-Euclidean geometry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Stewart. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nazi Art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Race. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unit. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have added your User page to the Wikipedia child protection category in this edit by including [[Category:Wikipedia child protection]] link. I suspect you wanted to make just a wiki-link to the category on your page, in which case you should've used an additional colon to escape the special meaning of the Category: prefix, like this:
[[:Category:Wikipedia child protection]].
Regards. --CiaPan (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sphere-world, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Stewart. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WillemienH. I notice you are actively editing articles on hyperbolic geometry and hyperbolic triangles. I have been extensively rewriting Lorentz transformation (in fact the current version is almost entirely YohanN7's and my work). If you are interested and have the time, would you like to contribute on the connection between hyperbolic triangles and rapidity for two boosts in different directions? No obligations, just a thought.

You may already know this, but here is the background. For two boosts in the same direction, the rapidities add to get the rapidity of the overall boost. For two boosts in different directions, the Lorentz transformation is not a single boost, but a boost followed/preceded by a rotation.

For ease of visualization take 2 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension for the spacetime diagram. The rapidity of a boost traces out a curve [in a hyperbolic sheet of constant time but varying spatial coordinates, a hyperbola (ct)² - x² - y² = (ct′)²] from one time axis to a second boosted time axis, and a third frame boosted relative to the second traces another curve in the surface. These two boosts form two edges of a hyperbolic triangle, the third edge is the resultant rapidity (but since the angles of a hyperbolic triangle are different to a flat Euclidean one, the rotation must be included somehow). I think this is correct, still looking for some good sources on this, a start has been made at Talk:Lorentz transformation/Archive 5#Hyperbolic geometry and addition of two rapidities in different directions.

Best, M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 18:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking about me, but really I don't know enough to help you with your page. Maybe better to ask some of the editors of hyperboloid model or Minkowski space or put the questions you have at [2] or [3] hope this helps, I am not sure even if the model is quantitative enough for hyperbolic geometry, good luck WillemienH (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries ans thanks for replying ^_^ Also, it's not my page! M∧Ŝc²ħεИ_τlk 22:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Detailed contents of Euclids elements Book 1, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/bookI.html.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Detailed contents of Euclids elements Book 1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/bookI.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 15:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that the proof you corrected was invalid. :)

The only step I notice you rejecting went from ℬ((ℬS → S) → S) and ℬ(ℬS → S) to ℬS, but a type 1 reasoner's beliefs are logically closed under MP, meaning by definition that he/she will infer q from p→q and p, so it's okay to infer ℬq from ℬ(p→q) and ℬp. The axiom ℬ(p→q) → (ℬp → ℬq) ensures this.

(My earlier proof was invalid in the sense that it used (ℬp ∧ ℬq) → ℬ(p∧q) — this is called agglomeration — which is often included, but isn't in this treatment, and might be worth a mention as an optional additional rule. But I caught that issue myself upon further review.)

JLM~enwiki (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is just the way I do proofs, I like to follow the very stict rules of Formal proof "A formal proof or derivation is a finite sequence of sentences (called well-formed formulas in the case of a formal language) each of which is an axiom, an assumption, or follows from the preceding sentences in the sequence by a rule of inference. ...".

If you look very strict there is no rule of inference that allows you to go from ℬ((ℬS → S) → S) and ℬ(ℬS → S) to ℬS. There is only given that for a reasoner : "If he or she ever believes p and believes p → q (p implies q) then he or she will (sooner or later) believe q " as an extra valid formula scheme (ℬp & ℬ(p → q)) →ℬq. It is important to realise this is not a rule of inference or an tautology but only an extra valid formula. (These are very fine lines, if in doubt use it only as valid formula) so if you want to use it in your proof it needs to be mentioned. not mentioning it gives an invalid proof.

Having said all this, you can argue that I am still a bit lax with the inference rules.

• S ≡ ¬ℬS [definition of S]
• (¬S → S) → S [elementary tautology]
• (ℬS → S) → S [because ¬S ≡ ℬS]

Should be replaced with:

1 S ≡ ¬ℬS [definition of S]

2 (¬S → S) → S [elementary tautology]

3 (¬S ≡ ¬ℬS ) → (((¬S → S) → S)→ (ℬS → S) → S [(not so) elementary tautology]

4 (((¬S → S) → S)→ (ℬS → S) → S [modus ponens 1/3]

5 (ℬS → S) → S [modus ponens 2 /4 ]

and you would have a fair point. Good luck WillemienH (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as excessive mincing to disallow treating a valid implication as an inference rule, and require using a tautology to get the expression into the form used by the formal rule unless logics which lack Conditional Proof or otherwise make inference by implication not universally valid are in the realm of discourse. Regarding laxity in your "correction", I'd consider your use of statements p and q to satisfy p∧q without including the statement p∧q as a line in the proof to be a bigger sin than admitting substitution of equivalent subexpressions (i.e., it's nitpicking which doesn't actually invalidate your proof, like I feel yours doesn't mean my proof is incorrect). Anyway, I added a note to the rule on type 1 reasoners about how (a∧b)→c is equivalent to a→(b→c) in the main article, so I hope that'll clarify things without having to double the length of the proof and thereby obscure the reasoning behind it. JLM~enwiki (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just be very carefull. In no time you will be able to proof S → ℬS and then you have lost the plot :) ( S → ℬS is not a valid formula and therefore should not be provable). and indeed under very strict interference rules Conditional Proof is not a valid interference rule. (mostly happens in logic that have the nessRule of necessitation, and doxastic logic is a logic where this rule can be used. WillemienH (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ho, but I think I can!

1. ¬S [Result of WillemienH 30-Dec-2015 ]

2. ¬S ∨ ℬS [disjunction introduction on 1]

3. S → ℬS [material implication on 2]

;)

JLM~enwiki (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mean proof that S → ℬS is a theorem (so without assuming anything of the previous proof) something like:

1. S [assumption]

2. ℬS [1 Rule of necessitation]

3. S → ℬS [conditional proof discharging assumption 1]

no this deduction is not valid , but

1. S → S [assumption]

2. ℬ(S → S) [1 Rule of necessitation]

3. (S →S) → ( ℬ(S→S)) [conditional proof discharging assumption 1]

is valid, can you see why? WillemienH (talk)

Yes, my "proof" of S → ℬS was a joke. I used the meaning of S from the main article where it's defined to be ¬ℬS, but you obviously (though implicitly) meant it to be an arbitrary proposition with implicit universal quantification. I should have put in a second smiley!

Since you love to split hairs, your 2nd example immediately above is also incorrect: Though the statements proper match a valid usage of necessitation, their structure is such that necessitation is improper to apply where you do, because you've chosen to take S→S as an assumption and use conditional proof. If you had eschewed conditional proof and taken S→S as a tautology instead, you would have had a valid proof as long as you accept q ⇒ x→q as an inference rule:

1. S→S [tautology]

2. ℬ(S→S) [necessitation]

3. (S→S) → ℬ(S→S) [q ⇒ x→q with q=ℬ(S→S) and x=(S→S)]

JLM~enwiki (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coordinate systems for the hyperbolic plane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosh. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isaak Yaglom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Relativity. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Normal plane (geometry), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Normal plane. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Varignon's theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Concave. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just to let you know I've updated the images on the article quadric as you requested. I couldn't match the colour scheme exactly, but I hope it's still OK. Thanks again for the request. —Sam^Talk 14:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Poincaré disk model, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hyperbolic geometry, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Transformation, Identity and Bisector. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WillemienH. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Incircle and excircles of a triangle page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WillemienH. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WillemienH! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 22:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]